Showing posts with label Complete Streets. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Complete Streets. Show all posts
Monday, June 4, 2012
Saturday, October 22, 2011
What's Wrong with Article 13?
Article 13 began life as a resolution calling for the installation of a pedestrian-actuated traffic control signal at the Green St. crosswalk in Coolidge Corner. That's the crosswalk going from Friendly's to Upper Crust and the Coolidge Corner Theater at the corner of Green St. and Harvard St. in the heart of our beloved CC shopping district. The Article has since been amended to call for a study of said light.
The petitioner claims that all will be right with the universe if we do this. In this alternate universe, pedestrians will line up and press the button, then patiently wait a minute and a half, happy to cross when the whooshing vehicles are finally forced to stop by the red light, the pedestrians will scurry quickly across, then once again the vehicles will resume whooshing. All this will occur because the traffic lights at the nearby intersections at Beacon and Babcock will be coordinated and perfectly synced to move the traffic in seamless flow. Too bad none of this alternate reality scenario resembles reality.
I can appreciate the appeal and simple logic of this idea. Unfortunately, the traffic and pedestrian flows along this stretch of Harvard are anything but simple and the addition of a traffic control signal at Green St. will wreak havoc to traffic flows along this stretch of Harvard. Consider the following: 1) Traffic flows are two-way and these two-way flows are not equally balanced. 2) There are turning vehicles that enter the traffic stream on Harvard St., even when Harvard St. is red at Beacon. Vehicles turn right, going north from westbound Beacon, vehicles turn left from westbound Babcock. 3) These folks, along with those at the tail end of the previous green light and other, non-synced flows (contrary to popular belief the lights cannot be perfectly synched due to reasons #1 and #2) will be stopped for 20 seconds or more at the new light at the Green St. cross walk. Hardly a recipe for whooshing. 4) If you think slowing and occasionally stopping for pedestrians at the crosswalk is annoying for drivers now, imagine a light stopping all traffic for one-half of the available time (Beacon green), whenever anyone may have pushed the button, whether they are there now or not. and 5) The travel lanes widen to two just before and through the Beacon St. intersection, then suddenly tapering down to one again, right before the cross walk. This bulge and squeeze is the real reason there is a flow issue at Beacon and Harvard, not the cross walk.
The petitioner has told us that the pedestrian light is not a new idea, that its been studied and recommended before. This is absolutely not true. The 2005 study he cites had it wrong, (there existing conditions report stated that there was already a light there), and simply recommended the signals be coordinated. Clearly, these folks had a keen power of observation. The other 2009 study concluded that the Green St. crosswalk did not seem to be a dominant issue creating backups. This was based on field observation and not a study of potential impacts. The petitioner also stated that all other options for improvement had been tried. Again, not true. Professor Peter Furth, former Transportation Board member, professor of civil engineering at Northeastern University, PhD from MIT in Transportation Systems and recipient of the 2004, Best Paper award from the Transportation Research Board Committee on Traffic Signal Systems, strongly warns against signalizing the crosswalk. Peter's advanced traffic signal control class looked at this stretch of Harvard St. as a case study. They concluded that the core problem was that too many vehicles were passing through the Beacon St. intersection and that this problem could be corrected by shortening the length of the traffic signal cycle. Professor Furth strongly warns against putting such a light here, and as a resident of Brookline he strongly objects, noting how well the crosswalk works now and understanding the benefits to maintaining a safe, pedestrian friendly shopping district. Professor Furth's study, complete with traffic flow simulations is the most indepth study done to date, and yet the petitioner did not even bother to read it. Brookline's Director of Engineering, Peter Ditto testified at the Selectmen's hearing on this Article that his Department did not feel a pedestrian-actuated light should be studied.
There is Town wide desire to improve travel conditions in Coolidge Corner, which is why the petitioner has succeeded in gathering some support for the article, but there is also a clear sense, expressed by many, that we should be looking more holistically at travel conditions near Beacon and Harvard and that we should not be entering into a study already having concluded what the source and solution to the problem is. The petitioner has assured us that other ideas will be looked at. Yet, this is not what the resolution says, and the resolution cannot be modified because it would become a fundamentally different Article. I don't know about you but I am not comfortable giving my support to something based on the assurance that really, its not what it says it is.
The fact is the petitioner has decided what improvement is desirable and concluded that it would have a positive result, all without the benefit of professional knowledge, without supporting facts or analysis, without consultation with the Town staff or boards responsible for these decisions, who have been, by the way, working diligently observing, testing and working with consultants to solve the problem. Doesn't their opinion matter?
So, what’s wrong with passing the Article and studying the traffic signal? Surely, the study will come to the same conclusions as Professor Furth and the idea of the traffic signal will be dropped. For starters, such a study looks at the wrong thing, making it a waste of Town resources, we already have the advantage of a high-caliber free study showing us the way towards a promising alternative improvement. Second, directing the scope, focus and policy direction of a consultant’s work away from the fundamental problem and towards a single, ill conceived and predetermined result is bad science and bad policy and will prevent us from identifying better, more cost effective solutions that work for everyone, whether on foot, bike or in a car. And third, let's pass a resolution that lets the professionals do their job, instead of telling them what the conclusion is before they start.
The petitioner claims that all will be right with the universe if we do this. In this alternate universe, pedestrians will line up and press the button, then patiently wait a minute and a half, happy to cross when the whooshing vehicles are finally forced to stop by the red light, the pedestrians will scurry quickly across, then once again the vehicles will resume whooshing. All this will occur because the traffic lights at the nearby intersections at Beacon and Babcock will be coordinated and perfectly synced to move the traffic in seamless flow. Too bad none of this alternate reality scenario resembles reality.
I can appreciate the appeal and simple logic of this idea. Unfortunately, the traffic and pedestrian flows along this stretch of Harvard are anything but simple and the addition of a traffic control signal at Green St. will wreak havoc to traffic flows along this stretch of Harvard. Consider the following: 1) Traffic flows are two-way and these two-way flows are not equally balanced. 2) There are turning vehicles that enter the traffic stream on Harvard St., even when Harvard St. is red at Beacon. Vehicles turn right, going north from westbound Beacon, vehicles turn left from westbound Babcock. 3) These folks, along with those at the tail end of the previous green light and other, non-synced flows (contrary to popular belief the lights cannot be perfectly synched due to reasons #1 and #2) will be stopped for 20 seconds or more at the new light at the Green St. cross walk. Hardly a recipe for whooshing. 4) If you think slowing and occasionally stopping for pedestrians at the crosswalk is annoying for drivers now, imagine a light stopping all traffic for one-half of the available time (Beacon green), whenever anyone may have pushed the button, whether they are there now or not. and 5) The travel lanes widen to two just before and through the Beacon St. intersection, then suddenly tapering down to one again, right before the cross walk. This bulge and squeeze is the real reason there is a flow issue at Beacon and Harvard, not the cross walk.
The petitioner has told us that the pedestrian light is not a new idea, that its been studied and recommended before. This is absolutely not true. The 2005 study he cites had it wrong, (there existing conditions report stated that there was already a light there), and simply recommended the signals be coordinated. Clearly, these folks had a keen power of observation. The other 2009 study concluded that the Green St. crosswalk did not seem to be a dominant issue creating backups. This was based on field observation and not a study of potential impacts. The petitioner also stated that all other options for improvement had been tried. Again, not true. Professor Peter Furth, former Transportation Board member, professor of civil engineering at Northeastern University, PhD from MIT in Transportation Systems and recipient of the 2004, Best Paper award from the Transportation Research Board Committee on Traffic Signal Systems, strongly warns against signalizing the crosswalk. Peter's advanced traffic signal control class looked at this stretch of Harvard St. as a case study. They concluded that the core problem was that too many vehicles were passing through the Beacon St. intersection and that this problem could be corrected by shortening the length of the traffic signal cycle. Professor Furth strongly warns against putting such a light here, and as a resident of Brookline he strongly objects, noting how well the crosswalk works now and understanding the benefits to maintaining a safe, pedestrian friendly shopping district. Professor Furth's study, complete with traffic flow simulations is the most indepth study done to date, and yet the petitioner did not even bother to read it. Brookline's Director of Engineering, Peter Ditto testified at the Selectmen's hearing on this Article that his Department did not feel a pedestrian-actuated light should be studied.
There is Town wide desire to improve travel conditions in Coolidge Corner, which is why the petitioner has succeeded in gathering some support for the article, but there is also a clear sense, expressed by many, that we should be looking more holistically at travel conditions near Beacon and Harvard and that we should not be entering into a study already having concluded what the source and solution to the problem is. The petitioner has assured us that other ideas will be looked at. Yet, this is not what the resolution says, and the resolution cannot be modified because it would become a fundamentally different Article. I don't know about you but I am not comfortable giving my support to something based on the assurance that really, its not what it says it is.
The fact is the petitioner has decided what improvement is desirable and concluded that it would have a positive result, all without the benefit of professional knowledge, without supporting facts or analysis, without consultation with the Town staff or boards responsible for these decisions, who have been, by the way, working diligently observing, testing and working with consultants to solve the problem. Doesn't their opinion matter?
So, what’s wrong with passing the Article and studying the traffic signal? Surely, the study will come to the same conclusions as Professor Furth and the idea of the traffic signal will be dropped. For starters, such a study looks at the wrong thing, making it a waste of Town resources, we already have the advantage of a high-caliber free study showing us the way towards a promising alternative improvement. Second, directing the scope, focus and policy direction of a consultant’s work away from the fundamental problem and towards a single, ill conceived and predetermined result is bad science and bad policy and will prevent us from identifying better, more cost effective solutions that work for everyone, whether on foot, bike or in a car. And third, let's pass a resolution that lets the professionals do their job, instead of telling them what the conclusion is before they start.
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Visit Brookline Park(ing) Day, 2010!!!!
September 17, 2010 is Park(ing) Day,
Join us in Coolidge Corner for a day of fun in the "Park"
What is Park(ing) Day?
It's an annual worldwide celebration where metered parking spaces are transformed into temporary parks for the public good.
Originally invented in 2005 by Rebar, a San Francisco art and design studio, Park(ing) Day asks the question, "What if we took the 200 sq. ft. of space normally dedicated exclusively to parked cars and reinterpreted it as a usable public space?
Brookline's Park(ing) Day parks will be located on both sides of Harvard St., just north of the Green St. pedestrian cross walk.
In front of Upper Crust Pizza and the Coolidge Corner Theater there will be a colorful activity center with games and "movies" showing pavement to parks improvements from around the country.
Across the street, in front of Friendly's there will be an urban oasis where visitors can sit on the grass or in a beach chair and dangle their toes in the water or play in the sand.
An underlying theme of Park(ing) Day parks is the exploration of the fact that approximately 80% of the public space in an urbanized setting is the street, which is usually the exclusive domain of the automobile. If we want to enliven our streets and make more accommodation for people places, we might be able to find a way to share the valuable public space of the street.
Our goal is to enliven our commercial area and create fun interactive people spaces that make it enjoyable to spend time "in
the street". Brookline's Park(ing) Day is sponsored and supported by the Brookline GreenSpace Alliance, Brookline Garden Club, Livable Streets, WalkBoston, Brookline Park's Department, Brookline Transportation Department and Transportation Board.
Park(ing) Day has captured the collective imagination. In 2009, there were 700 parks in 144 cities, in 21 countries on 6 continents and 2010 promises to be even bigger. To learn more about the movement in general, visit www.parkingday.org.
To help create or staff Brookline's Park(ing) Day, please contact me! (See the email me button to the left!)
Hope to see you in the "park"!
[where: 02446]
Join us in Coolidge Corner for a day of fun in the "Park"
It's an annual worldwide celebration where metered parking spaces are transformed into temporary parks for the public good.
Originally invented in 2005 by Rebar, a San Francisco art and design studio, Park(ing) Day asks the question, "What if we took the 200 sq. ft. of space normally dedicated exclusively to parked cars and reinterpreted it as a usable public space?
Brookline's Park(ing) Day parks will be located on both sides of Harvard St., just north of the Green St. pedestrian cross walk.
 | |
| In front of Upper Crust and CC Theater by Derrick Choi |
In front of Upper Crust Pizza and the Coolidge Corner Theater there will be a colorful activity center with games and "movies" showing pavement to parks improvements from around the country.
 | |
| In front of Friendly's by Derrick Choi |
An underlying theme of Park(ing) Day parks is the exploration of the fact that approximately 80% of the public space in an urbanized setting is the street, which is usually the exclusive domain of the automobile. If we want to enliven our streets and make more accommodation for people places, we might be able to find a way to share the valuable public space of the street.
the street". Brookline's Park(ing) Day is sponsored and supported by the Brookline GreenSpace Alliance, Brookline Garden Club, Livable Streets, WalkBoston, Brookline Park's Department, Brookline Transportation Department and Transportation Board.
Park(ing) Day has captured the collective imagination. In 2009, there were 700 parks in 144 cities, in 21 countries on 6 continents and 2010 promises to be even bigger. To learn more about the movement in general, visit www.parkingday.org.
To help create or staff Brookline's Park(ing) Day, please contact me! (See the email me button to the left!)
Hope to see you in the "park"!
[where: 02446]
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Beacon Street Finishing Touches
If you are a construction junkie or a little kid who likes watching big trucks moving dirt and pouring pavement, you've had quite a year. The Beacon Street project finally hit Coolidge Corner full force for the past few months, and each time I've ventured to the corner on foot I've stood in amazement at the scale and monumentally of the action going on. It's also been a challenge wandering into the street or onto the bouncing plywood planks as we attempt to frequent our usual places of business. These maneuvers seemed nearly impossible for many elderly and mothers with strollers, but they still tried, as the rest of us tried to help them! I also stood, quite saddened and stunned, when I went to go to Rodney's bookstore and found it gone. It was a treasure trove to me.
I admit, I haven't been completely tuned into the whole project, mostly trying to remember not to come home on Beacon in my car the few times a week I'm out in it. I can't say I really know why it was that this massive undertaking was considered necessary. Granted one of the big improvements on the functional side, in my opinion, is we will no longer have the angle parked cars backing up into the travel lanes. I was once stopped in a line of cars backed up from the Harvard/Beacon light and someone in a parked car started to back-up. Now, this seems normal, they are just getting ready to move when the traffic clears, but no. I soon realized that this person was either blind or not looking and was continuing to back-up into my car and I had no where to move to, my only resort was my horn. It took a good five long blasts until the apparently blind and nearly deaf person finally stopped within an inch of my car.
The bike lane is a good idea, although it would have been much better to have done it without gaps. But all those traffic lights seem like a few too many. I'm all for safety at intersections and if it helps the pedestrians, great, but I remain skeptical on that score. We should be at the point in our thinking that we accommodate all users of a roadway, no longer seeing it as the exclusive domain of maximum velocity moving automobiles, but rather a part of the fabric of a living breathing community. The name for this new (or actually old) way of looking at streets is called "complete streets". The pedestrian/auto conflicts at Beacon/Harvard have really been escalating in the last few years, as the cars get stuck in the middle of Beacon or don't want to wait for pedestrians as they try to turn right. On this score, I'm not sure the new project will be much help. As I crossed Beacon Street from the Southeast corner, I noticed a strange offset to the route we were guided on which sent us directly into a large (5 ft tall) switch box as we crossed the T stop. I hope this was just a construction fluke. Otherwise this is a case of not considering the pedestrian.
Coinciding with the completion of the Beacon Street project, the new commercial building next to the post office is nearing completion. The one good thing about this new building is all the glass. It will at least not be a harsh, solid wall. Sadly though, it will be a Staples. Generic, utilitarian office supplies, which are readily available at two other nearby locations does not stir the soul.
But what has really grabbed my attention now is the "jewelery" of the project. It's like after your house rehab gets done and now you are putting the furniture, the rug and pictures into the room. It becomes livable again. One day we see a mountain of dirt with a squadron of interesting looking mid-sized trees and the next day they are planted in a row between the T tracks and the roadway to the east of Pleasant Street. Nice, I hope they live. At least we have gotten some rain. So many of the new trees I saw planted this summer in and around Washington Square looked as if they will not make it. But as a whole, the plantings look nice and I am hopeful that the overall effect will be leafy, green and softening as they grow.
How about those snazzy new light posts. They have a nicely detailed curving arm in a glossy black paint, with an elegantly egg shaped glass. They are lovely, but they get lost in the forest of poles! Are we really going to have the jumble of sizes and styles that we've got going, or are they (please!) going to take down a few of the old ones. As an example of what I'm talking about, check out that little traffic island at Beacon and Pleasant Street. There are the thick short poles with the multitudinous traffic signals on them. These we are stuck with, but they add a lot of visual clutter just by themselves. Then there are the new street lights, great, wish we could see them. Then there are the old street lights, the pole is a composite stone and the light fixture is your standard issue interstate highway lamp. Then, (yes there's more!!!) there are the sixties era square black shades with white globe lamps meant to look smart and dress up the traffic island (which was always trying to convince us it was meant to be a public space as evident from the presence of a bench). There are more of these black square retro lights scattered about in Coolidge Corner. My guess is they came in with the Center Place development, which with its mirrored facade is looking pretty dated these days too.
The design of the new light posts is nice, but if there is no consistency of use, their effect will be one of creating chaos rather than making a design statement. The look of the street "jewelery" such as the plantings, signage, lighting, benches, building facades, etc. will set the tone for all of Coolidge Corner and will have significant impacts on how welcoming and pleasing it is. Consistent design standards are needed and would be welcome to both developers and regulators alike. I wonder if we will get our historic cast aluminum street signs back? Are they really still thinking of posting both signs, the historic and a new street sign on the same post? This would be disastrous and silly. These details could be the most important part of this massive project, I hope they pay attention and reduce the chaos.
I admit, I haven't been completely tuned into the whole project, mostly trying to remember not to come home on Beacon in my car the few times a week I'm out in it. I can't say I really know why it was that this massive undertaking was considered necessary. Granted one of the big improvements on the functional side, in my opinion, is we will no longer have the angle parked cars backing up into the travel lanes. I was once stopped in a line of cars backed up from the Harvard/Beacon light and someone in a parked car started to back-up. Now, this seems normal, they are just getting ready to move when the traffic clears, but no. I soon realized that this person was either blind or not looking and was continuing to back-up into my car and I had no where to move to, my only resort was my horn. It took a good five long blasts until the apparently blind and nearly deaf person finally stopped within an inch of my car.
The bike lane is a good idea, although it would have been much better to have done it without gaps. But all those traffic lights seem like a few too many. I'm all for safety at intersections and if it helps the pedestrians, great, but I remain skeptical on that score. We should be at the point in our thinking that we accommodate all users of a roadway, no longer seeing it as the exclusive domain of maximum velocity moving automobiles, but rather a part of the fabric of a living breathing community. The name for this new (or actually old) way of looking at streets is called "complete streets". The pedestrian/auto conflicts at Beacon/Harvard have really been escalating in the last few years, as the cars get stuck in the middle of Beacon or don't want to wait for pedestrians as they try to turn right. On this score, I'm not sure the new project will be much help. As I crossed Beacon Street from the Southeast corner, I noticed a strange offset to the route we were guided on which sent us directly into a large (5 ft tall) switch box as we crossed the T stop. I hope this was just a construction fluke. Otherwise this is a case of not considering the pedestrian.
Coinciding with the completion of the Beacon Street project, the new commercial building next to the post office is nearing completion. The one good thing about this new building is all the glass. It will at least not be a harsh, solid wall. Sadly though, it will be a Staples. Generic, utilitarian office supplies, which are readily available at two other nearby locations does not stir the soul.
But what has really grabbed my attention now is the "jewelery" of the project. It's like after your house rehab gets done and now you are putting the furniture, the rug and pictures into the room. It becomes livable again. One day we see a mountain of dirt with a squadron of interesting looking mid-sized trees and the next day they are planted in a row between the T tracks and the roadway to the east of Pleasant Street. Nice, I hope they live. At least we have gotten some rain. So many of the new trees I saw planted this summer in and around Washington Square looked as if they will not make it. But as a whole, the plantings look nice and I am hopeful that the overall effect will be leafy, green and softening as they grow.
How about those snazzy new light posts. They have a nicely detailed curving arm in a glossy black paint, with an elegantly egg shaped glass. They are lovely, but they get lost in the forest of poles! Are we really going to have the jumble of sizes and styles that we've got going, or are they (please!) going to take down a few of the old ones. As an example of what I'm talking about, check out that little traffic island at Beacon and Pleasant Street. There are the thick short poles with the multitudinous traffic signals on them. These we are stuck with, but they add a lot of visual clutter just by themselves. Then there are the new street lights, great, wish we could see them. Then there are the old street lights, the pole is a composite stone and the light fixture is your standard issue interstate highway lamp. Then, (yes there's more!!!) there are the sixties era square black shades with white globe lamps meant to look smart and dress up the traffic island (which was always trying to convince us it was meant to be a public space as evident from the presence of a bench). There are more of these black square retro lights scattered about in Coolidge Corner. My guess is they came in with the Center Place development, which with its mirrored facade is looking pretty dated these days too.
The design of the new light posts is nice, but if there is no consistency of use, their effect will be one of creating chaos rather than making a design statement. The look of the street "jewelery" such as the plantings, signage, lighting, benches, building facades, etc. will set the tone for all of Coolidge Corner and will have significant impacts on how welcoming and pleasing it is. Consistent design standards are needed and would be welcome to both developers and regulators alike. I wonder if we will get our historic cast aluminum street signs back? Are they really still thinking of posting both signs, the historic and a new street sign on the same post? This would be disastrous and silly. These details could be the most important part of this massive project, I hope they pay attention and reduce the chaos.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)